Not to mention that Wallace has been his team's #1 receiving threat, whereas Tate is a sidekick.

The Seattle offense wasn't friendly to Tate, no receiver has gone there and put up big numbers. I think Tate is more talented and versatile than Wallace, who seems to really need a big armed qb who can push the ball down the field to match his speed. I think it's pretty even between these two and it could come down to preference._________________

I figured this would be an easy choice for some people to take Tate over Wallace.

Wallace is a solid WR, but I wouldn't take him over Tate. even if the stats do not compliment it, I, like VR, see Tate as a more complete and talented receiver. I'd consider Davante Adams over him too, but that's probably a minority opinion._________________

Maaaaan I can't believe you guys are really pulling for Golden Tate in this one... I mean, he's decent but he's never even touched the type of #'s Wallace has put up.

Wallace has #1 receiver ability, Tate will NEVER be a #1 and I have no idea where this praise for him is coming from. Not even being a homer, either.

Wallace hasnt had a 1,000 yard season since 2011. Tate put up excellent numbers last year, 99 receptions and 1300 yards. Wallace is likely the better deep threat, but Tate is arguably better everywhere else.

Tate was also targeted a lot more than Wallace and is part of a heavy passing offense. And since when did receptions and yards become more important than touchdowns? Wallace, in fewer opportunities, had 2.5x more touchdowns than Tate.

You put Wallace in Detroit's offense with Matthew Stafford throwing the football and Calvin Johnson taking away coverages and what type of numbers do you think Wallace puts up? Conversely, do you think Tate would put up anywhere near the same type of numbers he did in Detroit if he was down in Miami with Tannehill?_________________

Tds are often a product of the offense. We saw Visanthe Shiancoe put up big TD numbers as he was used heavily in the red zone. Tate isn't the deep threat that Wallace is and Detroit doesn't use Tate much in the red zone. I can see why his TD production may be slightly underwhelming._________________

Tds are often a product of the offense. We saw Visanthe Shiancoe put up big TD numbers as he was used heavily in the red zone. Tate isn't the deep threat that Wallace is and Detroit doesn't use Tate much in the red zone. I can see why his TD production may be slightly underwhelming.

And catches aren't a product of an offense? Tate runs a lot of short, underneath routes. All designed to get him the ball quickly.

Scoring points is ultimately the most important goal for an offense, and Mike Wallace has shown to be vastly superior in that department._________________

Tds are often a product of the offense. We saw Visanthe Shiancoe put up big TD numbers as he was used heavily in the red zone. Tate isn't the deep threat that Wallace is and Detroit doesn't use Tate much in the red zone. I can see why his TD production may be slightly underwhelming.

And catches aren't a product of an offense? Tate runs a lot of short, underneath routes. All designed to get him the ball quickly.

Scoring points is ultimately the most important goal for an offense, and Mike Wallace has shown to be vastly superior in that department.

Let's not sell his production in Detroit short last year. Tate performed really well when Johnson wasn't healthy. He also accounted for almost a 20% of his teams TDs. Stafford only threw 22 TD passes last year, and Miami was 2nd in redzone attempts compared to Detroit at 23rd.

I think they are pretty close, and wouldn't disagree if someone chose one over the other, but I don't think it's right to underrate Tate as much as you are._________________

I am an odd ball...but, I voted for Devante Adams. I know he was pretty raw coming out of college, but Rodgers developed some chemistry with him down the stretch. All reports seem to be saying that he has worked very hard in the offseason. I think he'll have a break out year.